China Mieville

This is the third time I’ve made an effort to read Perdido Street Station.  The first two times, I only lasted about 20 pages or so.  The last time, I  was determined to take it on my Costa Rica trip, but abandon it because the prose was just to dense for airplane or bus.  That was probably a wise move.

The third attempt is the result of John Scalzi stating that he felt Perdido Street Station was the best SciFi novel of the past decade.  Since Scalzi is one of my favorite authors and blogsters, I felt that it deserved another, intense go of it.

…With pleasant results.  Now, about 150 pages into the book, I’m hooked.  What makes reading Mieville difficult is his dense, almost poetic prose.  His metaphoric description and visual images are very much like early Neil Stephenson, William Gibson or like The Road by Cormick McCarthy.  Visual images like

Veldt to scrub to fields to farms to these first tumbling houses that rise from the earth.  It has been night for a long time.  The hovels that encrust the river’s edge have grown like mushrooms around me in the dark.

It`s challenging reading at times, but once inside Mieville`s prose you are transported to his original, ominous world.  I guess I`ve been spoiled by the easy reading of some of the more YA oriented books I`ve been reading lately.  It took the story in Perdido Street Station more than 50 pages to ramp up, but the book is over 600 pages, so there`s still lots of opportunity for plot development.  The plot is proving to be very intricate and follows several threads, -interesting, if a little bizarre.

I guess some good books just need a little determination.

Heaven?

I don’t know what the demographic makeup is of Today Show watchers, but I have to think that it’s pretty neutrally distributed.  So the polls should probably be a reasonable reflection of American mentality, especially if that poll has had over 100 000 participants.

So it is with some surprise that I find this poll on the question, “Do you believe in Heaven?”  I suppose that there is some ambiguity regarding “what kind of heaven?” or “do you mean a literal heaven?”, and yet the comments, again, provide us with interesting clarification of what was going on in the heads of the responders, -and it’s pretty literal.  The overwhelming result of “yes” (71%) is a good indication of the state of belief in the U.S.

A Canadian poll, all-be-it a much more professional one than the Today Show one, shows that around half of Canadians believe in “heaven”, although further analysis shows that a lot of those people are not talking about the traditional heaven. The percentage of people with an unfailing belief in God and Heaven was closer to 30%.

70% in the U.S. vs. 30% in Canada.  I think that says a lot about our differences.  Personally, I think that’s a good thing, although I’m sure there are those that think we should be more like the U.S.  -And I’m totally sure that all of them are Conservatives.

Intervention in Libya

In an earlier post on Integral Politics I noted that the situation in Libya is not the same as the situation in Egypt or Tunisia.  In those countries, cultural evolution had proceeded to the point where they were ripe for the transfer to a more democratic government.  Popular support and conditions within both the existing government and the economic systems were in favor of change, even if the fossils of the existing regime weren’t.  This is not true in Libya.

I consider myself a pacifist who also recognizes that there are some things that just won’t move forward without some kind of forceful, violent intervention  Even Gandhi admitted that there were situations where passive, peaceful tactics would be a successful strategy.  I doubt, for example, that Gandhi’s non-violent demonstrations would have gotten him much traction in Nazi Germany.  The American and French Revolutions are examples of military force being used to facilitate a jump in cultural, political evolution (along with the Magna Carta, the Reformation and a handful of Latin American uprisings against foreign domination, amongst others).  Unfortunately the use of military force is too unwieldy, and often is implemented without the necessary reservation and finesse needed to preserve its integrity, -especially when imposed from outside sources.  Internal rebellions have a better track record.

The military intervention in Libya has been criticized for a number of reasons.

Some state that in an area where there are many regimes persecuting their own people, it is hypocritical to centre out Libya.  Nonsense.  In Libya you have a clearly insane leader who has exploited his people for decades building up military force, and is now using that military force to ruthlessly attack peaceful protesters.  Similar things may be happening in other countries, but I think that pointing to them as a reason for invalidating our actions in Libya is ridiculous for two reasons.  First, the conditions in other situations are nowhere near as clear cut as they appears to be in Libya, and second, it is impossible (and hardly desirable) to intervene in all these other countries, -so, is the argument that since we can’t help everyone, we should help no-one?

In the States, Obama has been criticized by his own party for overstepping the Constitution.  Members of Congress object to the fact that they were not given any say in these actions and that the President acted unilaterally.  At the same time, President Obama is being criticized for not acting quickly enough, with people saying that if this no fly zone had been implemented a few weeks ago, the rebels would not have lost their momentum and had a much better chance for success.  Well, I guess he just can’t win.

The situation in Libya is clear cut on most points.  A madman is trying to murder his people.  The rebels in Libya, who are not directly under the sway of Qaddafi’s  propaganda, are freedom fighters.  The action was taken, not unilaterally, but after the assembly of a broad based alliance which included members of the Arab League.  Very few people are willing to argue that Qaddafi should not be booted out.

But there is one thing wrong with this whole picture.  The fact is that, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, and unlike Morocco and Yemen (who have announced a desire to move their governments in a more progressive direction), Libya is not ready.  Libya is a country with many tribal and geographic divisions.  While a small percentage of the people are ready for a more democratic government, it has yet to be demonstrated that enough of the country’s population will support it.  So, where will this lead?  What is the end game?  Once the existing dictatorial regime is expelled (if it is), what will replace it?

This is where Integral Politics comes in.  Intervention to protect innocent lives in Libya is noble, but without an end game, it may do more harm than good.  Without an end game, this may turn into a civil war where many more people are killed than would have been if Qaddafi brought down his iron fist and stopped the rebellions quickly.  That corrupt iron fist may have been the only thing holding a fragile country together.  Intervening without taking all of that into consideration, working diplomatically to secure some kind of viable end game, is a travesty and an almost criminal lack of foresight.  With great power comes great responsibility, and having the ability to send powerful military forces into a region to police it doesn’t always mean that it is a good idea, …at least not without some kind of long range plan that will honour the reality of the situation.

The end game here is yet to be seen.  But the way that politicians and generals are dancing around the question suggests that there may not be one.  Without it, the best of intentions may backfire.